I can't recall having gotten a response. However, since this has
been tested by a bunch of others, I'll resolve this ticket.
[levitte - Fri Oct 11 00:01:54 2002]:
The question was, in what way does your patch make things better?
Since there was no answer for quite a while, I assumed the
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Oct 10 23:29:14 2002]:
a question which was never CC'd to me. Also I'm not sure what is
the
meaning of these two entries:
Tue Aug 13 17:52:03 2002
jaenicke - Milestone 0.9.6h added
Tue Aug 13 17:52:13 2002
jaenicke - Subsystem Build added
Oh,
So, did the patch get put in, or was it useless?
-chris
Richard Levitte via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Oct 10 23:29:14 2002]:
a question which was never CC'd to me. Also I'm not sure what is
the
meaning of these two entries:
Tue Aug 13 17:52:03 2002
The question was, in what way does your patch make things better?
Since there was no answer for quite a while, I assumed the question
wouldn't be answered, and decided to resolve the ticket. Wrongly,
it now seems, so I'll reopen it and let you answer the question.
[levitte - Thu Oct 10
I'm sorry, I fail to see why your change makes it better. Care to
explain?
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Aug 1 09:14:21 2002]:
Here's a patch that fixes the DETECT_GNU_LD code in Makefile.org
when
building on a Sun box with GCC 2.95.2 and higher. Yes the
timestamp
is a few months
Here's a patch that fixes the DETECT_GNU_LD code in Makefile.org when
building on a Sun box with GCC 2.95.2 and higher. Yes the timestamp
is a few months old, but the patch applies cleanly to
openssl-0.9.6e/Makefile.org Please let me know if this is not your
preferred
